WTF. I dont understand why liberals dont like this man. I can certainly understand why republicans dont like this traitor. I mean, no child left behind, medicare drug plan, no SS reform, for amnesty, and now this shit. Honestly, Kerry might not have been this liberal.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-09-17-clinton-health-plan_N.htm?csp=34

Clinton unveiled her plan as Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said President Bush wants to achieve universal health care before he leaves office.

Leavitt told the USA TODAY editorial board that Bush will veto a Democratic plan emerging from Congress that would add $35 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the Children's Health Insurance Program over five years. In doing so, Leavitt said, Bush will urge Congress to join him in seeking coverage for all Americans.

"He'd like to see the larger debate begin," Leavitt said. "The very best opportunity we have may well be in the next 15 months."

9/18/2007 5:15:54 PM

how about not liking bush for bastardizing the ideals of the Republican party by increasing gov't spending and the scope of gov't

9/18/2007 5:32:03 PM

^ I totally agree. He has been such a disappointment and really shares no republican ideals. I just dont understand why he is disliked by dems. Other than the war, he is probably the most liberal president Ive witnessed, but I wasnt old enough for carter.

9/18/2007 5:34:57 PM

Quote :

"^ I totally agree. He has been such a disappointment and really shares no republican ideals. I just dont understand why he is disliked by dems. Other than the war, he is probably the most liberal president Ive witnessed, but I wasnt old enough for carter."

As a libertarian independent, all I have to say to disgruntled Republicans is you reap what you sow.

9/18/2007 5:38:05 PM

^no shit. He is such a disgrace.

I voted for that sorry SOB.

9/18/2007 5:41:25 PM

Well, the best thing for you to do is to not support Republican candidates in the primaries that remind you of Bush, whoever you think they are.

9/18/2007 6:45:43 PM

Just abandon the Republican party and be an independent.

9/18/2007 6:49:49 PM

vote for ron paul. the only true conservative candidate.

9/18/2007 7:01:06 PM

Quote :

"Other than the war,"

you've gotta admit, that's a pretty big "other" to just be throwing around...

of course, i imagine that dems would have two fears for a plan like this, A: that bush would get all the credit for it, and B: that he's screw it up

9/18/2007 7:49:55 PM

^ eh, I think A is their bigger fear. But yeah, if W had a D beside his name instead of an R, the Dems would love him; in addition, the 'pubs would hate him

9/18/2007 7:53:21 PM

Quote :

"I just dont understand why he is disliked by dems. Other than the war, he is probably the most liberal president Ive witnessed,"

well u are failing to realize that George W while not the most fiscally conservative president he is VERY socially conservative when plotted on the political spectrum. Also, his economic policies can almost described as "corporate welfare" whereas a traditional republican would support no gov't involvment and Democrats portray themselves as fighting for the "common people" supporting more social welfare programs. What makes him the champion of the billy bob and peggy Sue crowd is supporting Christian Values in his political decisions. Anyone in the defense industry would also support George of course due to their own economic interest.

I prioritize Social issues over economic ones which is a major reason i tend choose democratic candidates. Although my views on economics tend to be "more conservative" I would rather my money being wasted for the public good then on some stupid war (unless our country faces a legit immediate threat) or helping out our beloved corporate CEOs & the old school wealth in this country. Better yet wasn't Bill Clinton the last president to balance the budget and even pull off a surplus; where as our Republican president for the last 6 years has done nothing but spend $texas digging us into deeper defecit.



[Edited on September 18, 2007 at 8:15 PM. Reason : l]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment

[Edited on September 18, 2007 at 8:19 PM. Reason : l]

9/18/2007 8:11:11 PM

^ I think, based on your statement, an argument could be made that George W. Bush is not really a conservative in the American traditional sense, but is more a "corporate populist". I wonder if anyone's ever come up with that term.

[Edited on September 18, 2007 at 8:21 PM. Reason : /]

9/18/2007 8:16:26 PM

Not exactly by definition

Quote :

"Populism is a political doctrine or philosophy that purports to defend the interests of the common people against an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist

9/18/2007 8:31:22 PM

^ Hence the corporate part. He uses the government to take care of corporations first on the economics side against the "corrupt" regulations and labor unions and restrictions, and then uses the government to give the common people what they want on a social scale (No Child Left Behind, the Gay Marriage Amendment Proposal, no stem cell research, universal healthcare in this case, etc.)

Think of the old "southern Democrat". They weren't fiscal conservatives, they dished out money to all their stakeholders as much as they could. They loved pork. The more public works projects, the better. The fiscal conservatives were in places like New York City, cause they didn't want their money going to the "poor backwater hinterlands" of the South and West. However, the southern Democrats were definitely social conservatives. Which to me has always represented what a populist is - social conservative, fiscal liberal, a true "I'll be there for you" politician, both at church and when there's bills to pay.

Are the politics of George W. Bush the heir of the old-school southern Democrat?

[Edited on September 18, 2007 at 8:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2007 8:40:34 PM

Ok. I did find the term corporate populism on the internet, and it's been described pretty much as "The Third Way" politics of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton amongst others, where party ideology is sacrificed for pragmatism through a managerial approach.

http://www.utas.edu.au/government/APSA/KMcCrackenfinal.pdf

So I guess my term doesn't work.

9/18/2007 9:13:08 PM

Anything is better than we have now ...

9/18/2007 9:21:08 PM

Hur I disagree. Under W he introduced no child left, largest increase in public funding. He had the medicare drug plan, another HUGe increase in entitlement spending( and this after years of telling us it and SS need fixed), and now THIS. Socialized medicine? WTF.

If he had a D next to his name he would be the wet dream for dems.

Back to corporate welfare. I would rather give a company a tax break that helps them employ hundreds or thousands of people, which allows them to earn their money, than continue to fund a system that plugs more and more money to reward people to keep making bad decisions.

9/18/2007 9:45:36 PM

Quote :

"I would rather give a company a tax break that helps them employ hundreds or thousands of people"

Or give their CEO a 500K bonus so he can buy the new Mercedes SL500

9/18/2007 10:11:01 PM

Hur, thats the thing in a democracy... people can get rich. I would rather one person get wealthy, and thousands employed than to keep thousands stuck in poverty and totally dependant on the govt.

9/18/2007 10:25:10 PM

businesses are so horrible!

9/18/2007 10:30:39 PM

I guess its pretty much fuck all republican principles in order to carve out a little legacy for himself

9/19/2007 12:10:55 AM

Holy crap!

This is unexpected. I need to pull my head out of the sand more often.

9/19/2007 12:18:20 AM

Government Healthcare : Privatized Healthcare

Government Cheese : All other foods

9/19/2007 12:32:02 AM

Quote :

"Hur, thats the thing in a democracy... people can get rich. I would rather one person get wealthy, and thousands employed than to keep thousands stuck in poverty and totally dependant on the govt"

I was not saying anything against the CEO getting the bonus. More power to him for working on earning the stockholders a good return. I was merely trying to poke holes in the argument that

Quote :

"I would rather give a company a tax break that helps them employ hundreds or thousands of people"

9/19/2007 12:37:09 AM

eyedrb, I think your problem is that you're confusing "liberal" and "bad."

"WTF, he's a terrible president, why don't you guys like him?"

A crappy education plan, increased deficits, and a medicare band aid is not "liberal." Especially when seen as a whole with his die-hard social conservatism and neoconservative foreign policy.

9/19/2007 8:02:45 AM

BUSH IS THE MO FUKIN MAN DOOD!!!!!!!!!!

9/19/2007 8:20:43 AM

^boone, to me Bush has been a HUGE disappointment. He is less conservative than clinton. Any idiot that tells you Bush is a better president is simply lying through thier teeth. The ONLY things I can give him credit for was the tax cut, and yes the war. (right call at the time, but a huge fucking mess). However, massive increases in govt spending including EXPANDING entitlement programs, pumping yet more money in a flawed system, doing NOTHING on immigration, greating a bigger clusterfuck of a government and programs(FEMA, etc), and now this. Socialized medicine? WTF. The government needs to get OUT of healthcare..there is the fix, not all in. This moron is holding a pair of twos and is betting the house. It just wont work.

Boone, socially im for gay civil unions, pro environment, pro choice(with limitations), for stem cell research(just not govt funded). But this entitlement culture is killing this country, im sorry but it is. Big government is not good for the working american, bc they fund it. Alot of these principles today only encourage bad decisions and breed those shitty traits further, only creating more load on the system with growing demands. In a country this rich, no one should go hungry or be without basic healthcare. However there is a big fuckign difference from starving and 300+ lb "poor" people, and paying for erection meds for medicaid.

Im sorry, Im just fed up with all this shit. I would love to vote for a change, but the policies the democrates are throwing out are clearly socialist and flawed, in my opinion, I just cant support that. How did we allow these people to get so popular? When did hard work, self responsiblity become a dying trait? Sorry for the rant. I wish I never got interested in politics, I would be much happier.

9/19/2007 8:25:53 AM

I'm all for government sponsored healthcare...

...If it's run like the USPS and run as a self-funded organization that competes in the free market.

9/19/2007 9:05:35 AM

^bad idea. It wouldnt compete with anything. They woudl force it on every american. That is the problem. Hell, yesterday hilliary said she woudl require health ins. in order to get a job. Yes, exactly what we need more barriers to working. She is dangerous.

Want a shinning example of the last time she pushed her agenda on healthcare? Google hillary and flu vaccines. Wonder why we get all of them from overseas now? Thank hilterly for that. Govt needs out of healthcare, and let the market fix it. It can be done. Remember how docs used to do housecalls, and actually have time to talk to patients...ah..good ole days.

9/19/2007 9:11:53 AM

I love those who 'love america' so much care nothing about americans. they assume everyone will abuse the system, become fat(ter) and become a burden. they see very little problems with the current health system and say that nonprofits can take care of those in need (despite the fact that the majority of them aren't taken care of at all.)

Yes, that's conservative american morals for you. Fuck you, everything for me!

9/19/2007 9:32:28 AM

monkey, quick question are people being denied emergency treatment in this country?

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 9:51 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2007 9:51:01 AM

Quote :

"The ONLY things I can give him credit for was the tax cut, and yes the war."

Do you realize the two-handedness of that statement though? Think back to 2003, we're about to go on a 4-year long war deployment that will eat up the military's equipment and resources in two different countries halfway across the world, and we pass a tax cut? That's having your cake and eating it too.

Although I am libertarian, a "tax-and-spend liberal" is far better to elect than a "cut taxes-and-still spend conservative". At least the liberal won't cause a default on the payments down the road. What the don't tax-and-still spend conservative does is eventually cause a crisis in confidence and taxes will go up a large amount later anyway, just to cover the bills.

9/19/2007 9:58:08 AM

Quote :

"monkey, quick question are people being denied emergency treatment in this country?"

Denied? In most cases no, in some yes. But are these people also being put in financial ruin because they desire to live despite something that may have randomly occurred to them? Yes.

9/19/2007 10:01:21 AM

ryan, I agree. I think the taxcuts came sooner than 03 though. But to cut taxes, go to war, and then increase entitlement programs is mind boggling.

Can you believe the feds cut the rate? It had to be political pressure with the housing market. I dont know how with inflation adn the falling dollar they not only didnt raise the rate, but actually lowered it.

Monkey, I see people everyday bitch about the cost of thier meds. However, have enough income to afford two packs a day. The mindset in this country is my money is for what I WANT, if I need something, it should be given to me. It all goes back to the lack of responsibility that is spreading in this country.

9/19/2007 10:08:26 AM

I'll agree that on average Americans save less than many countries. This behavior is not helped by government rhetoric (Fuck the terrorists, go out and shop!). But my argument is that despite the fact that some people may abuse the system you should not penalize everyone for something that would be an overall good. Focus more on preventative healthcare, give people incentives to stop smoking and eating a quadruple cheeseburger. If people have real incentives (tax breaks for unused insurance credits or something) then they'll change. Right now the system is fucked and is hurting Americans more than any terrorist has ever done all for the sake of profit.

9/19/2007 10:13:36 AM

Quote :

"Can you believe the feds cut the rate? It had to be political pressure with the housing market. I dont know how with inflation adn the falling dollar they not only didnt raise the rate, but actually lowered it."

Bernanke is in a tough spot. He could've been Volcker and cause short-term pain for long-term health, or he could've been Greenspan and futilely tried to push pain farther into the future. He chose Greenspan. And there's an election next year.

Well, here's the implications. Gold is $732 per oz. Oil is $82 per barrel. The U.S. dollar is only worth $1.01 Canadian. Remember those jokes 10 years ago comedians made about Canadian money? It's about to become worth more. Big implications for the NHL.

9/19/2007 10:26:49 AM

Quote :

"bad idea. It wouldnt compete with anything. They woudl force it on every american. That is the problem. Hell, yesterday hilliary said she woudl require health ins. in order to get a job. Yes, exactly what we need more barriers to working. She is dangerous."

That's not anywhere near what I said. Way to put words in my mouth.

9/19/2007 10:49:48 AM

Quote :

"(No Child Left Behind,"

NO child left behind is a disaster. everyone who works in the schools hates it. The program ends up screwing over the teachers in the "inner city" schools while watering down the education of our youth in order to "teach to the test"


i will probably send my children to private school b.c our public schools suck

9/19/2007 11:03:11 AM

monkey, from what ive seen the programs offered offer no incentives. They may require you to have a yearly exam, but so what. How do they enforce it? Right now, if you take care of yourself, you pay a lower rate.ie save money. If you smoke, overweight, dont exercise, you pay more bc you are a higher risk. Several states have forced healthcare on everyone, and everyone pays the same amount, so basically the unhealthy ones get a BREAK, while the healthy ones get penalized... in my opinion that isnt fair.

9/19/2007 11:13:46 AM

you're still not accounting for people who run on bad luck and are screwed. with the ever-increasing income gap and the poverty rate increasing you're basically hanging those people out on a limb and just assuming nothing happens to them.

It's more likely that if healthcare is government subsidized then prices will go down because of government control. Sure, you may be 'paying' for more than you use but you'll still be paying less in the longrun (assuming the program that is setup isn't complete shite and run by cronies like everything the current administration has done.)

You're also willing to finance a war to 'protect america' but you're not willing to pay for something that costs less than a war and will actually protect/help americans? I fail to see the logic.

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2007 11:18:53 AM

monkey, again I disagree. You will be paying more for less. Americans want several things when it comes to healthcare, the best doctors, best equipment, no wait, and free. It simply cant happen. Most countries with socialized medicine have LONG wait times, 17 weeks in canada. And the bitch of it is, most canadians also pay EXTRA for health ins. still.

People can afford healthcare in this country. Yes, it might mean you cant drive a bmw, but its all about priorities.

poor people have better insurance than you and I, sadly enough. Medicaid is the best bang for your buck, followed by medicare. Thats the hard truth of it. It is not govt job to take care of people who keep making bad decisions, but frankly its becoming that way bc of peoples attitudes and increasing population coming from such people.

9/19/2007 11:24:56 AM

Quote :

" WTF. I dont understand why liberals dont like this man. "

Wow dude. Good job blowing your intellectual credibility salisburyboy style in the first real sentence.

9/19/2007 11:30:03 AM

Wow this thread is all over the place.

Anyway, blaming NCLB for the current festering mediocrity of the public school system is laughable. Sure NCLB has not helped the problem, its just more of the same micromanaging from the state and federal goverments. Education should be left at the local level, or better yet the private level so that we could actually have flexibility. No more WCPS telling you where to send your kids...

9/19/2007 11:30:34 AM

So you're telling me that 46.6 million americans are driving BMW's instead of getting insurance?

Oh wait

Quote :

"* The percentage of Americans who are uninsured rose largely because the percentage of people with employer-sponsored coverage continued to decline, as it has in the past several years. "

Quote :

"Lack of insurance is much more common among people with low incomes. Some 24.4 percent of people with incomes below $25,000 were uninsured in 2005, almost triple the rate of 8.5 percent among people with incomes over $75,000."

And let's not forget all those kids that are blingin it out with their high-paying jobs and BMW's.

Quote :

"The percentage of children under 18 who are uninsured rose from 10.8 percent in 2004 to 11.2 percent in 2005, while the number of uninsured children climbed from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005, an increase of 360,000."

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

Show me your BMW stats.

9/19/2007 11:32:24 AM

There are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.

BTW, there are not 46.6 million citizens without health ins. That number is overinflated. Of those some can afford it, others are between jobs, others are eligible for medicaid and medicare but just have filled out papers. Some conservative estimates bring the number closer to 9million citizens without ins. for the long term.

And children in houses making under 20k a year, maybe eligible for medicaid depending on the number of kids. IE. if you cant afford one, have more..LOL

Do you know why most younger people dont have health ins? MOst cite they are in good health and dont value it. Wow.

Stop equating someone not having health ins. to not getting treatment. Its bullshit.

Here is an example.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062107dnbusuninsured.3ba25bd.html

9/19/2007 11:50:06 AM

Quote :

"There are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326."

Please provide evidence.

Quote :

"Some conservative estimates bring the number closer to 9million citizens without ins. for the long term."

Some conservative estimates said Iraq had WMD's too and see where that lead us.

Quote :

"Do you know why most younger people dont have health ins? MOst cite they are in good health and dont value it. Wow."

Yes, children under 18 are REALLY capable of making this decision on their own.

Quote :

" Stop equating someone not having health ins. to not getting treatment. Its bullshit. "

Stop putting words in my mouth?

I said people without health insurance (for whatever reason, legitimate or not) that have accidents are often left with stupid amounts of debt because hospitals and whatnot adjust for insurance costs and ramp prices up so they can rake in cash. This is a broken system.

9/19/2007 11:57:35 AM

lets replace it with an even more broken system

9/19/2007 12:00:45 PM

monkey, most docs including myself acutally adjust the prices down for people paying cash. The reason we have to inflate prices is to fight agains ins. cuts every year. I know alot of hospitals do this as well. The people making the most money with the current system are hospitals and ins. companies, at least that has been my experience. Alot of the problem is americans are simply ignorant about their own healthcare and ins. You can actually call around different hospitals and nego a price for say delivering a baby before hand, and make payments. However, most dont do that, bc that requires planning. As opposed to the american way of wait till something happens, then say, "what do i do now, somone should help me" attitude.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf

page 24 of 85 will give you the chart you want.

The census shows almost 46 million uninsured: of that
about 12 million arent citizens
about 16 million are above 50k a year
only 9 million do not work
19million between the age of 24-34
What it doesnt account for is that some will be getting coverage soon, either through new jobs, becoming eligible thru jobs, or getting on the system.

Just dont believe all the shit you see on tv. Politicains will say anything to get elected.

Hope that helps

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2007 12:23:01 PM

Quote :

"Most countries with socialized medicine have LONG wait times, 17 weeks in canada. And the bitch of it is, most canadians also pay EXTRA for health ins. still."

you're an idiot and talking out of your ass. i'm from canada and didn't experience any of that. 3 days at most. wow, a whopping 3 days. if its serious, same day no problem.

maybe 17 weeks for something such as a physical.

please get some facts before talking.

thanks.

9/19/2007 12:30:23 PM

Quote :

"if its serious, same day no problem."

what if there is something really serious that affects a lot of people? still same day no problem? or rich people in front of the line, poor people in the back?

^btw what were your income tax rate and sales tax rate when you lived in Canada?

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ^]

9/19/2007 12:32:55 PM